Friday, June 14, 2013

Shared Illusions(Delusions)

Recently, one of my readership raised a note-worthy question. Paraphrased, the question was this: Can two people share illusions. Personally, I think delusions is a better word choice. But at any rate, the answer, I believe, is a resounding yes, two people can most certainly share an illusion/delusion, but I contend that not only two people can take part in this, but thousands, even millions, can. But let's deal with an example of the former, first(two people):

 There was a popular board game when I was growing up called the "Ouija Board", or sometimes called, a Spiritual Board, which is a board game that consists of a flat board with the alphabet and the numerals 0-9 on it, along with the words "yes", "no", and "goodbye" on it. On a few versions, there are also some artsy "mystical" symbols on it such as the ever-popular pentagram and half moon, which I suppose sets the mood for what's (supposedly) about to come. There is also a plastic or wooden indicator by which the "spirits"(be they good, or evil) presumably communicate, speaking through the players as "mediums" by pointing to letters/numbers/words to get their "message" across, during what's called a "séance". In a nutshell, players place their fingers(hint) on the indicator, then ask the "spirit world" questions in the hopes that a disembodied "person"(AKA "spirit") will answer. 

Next: A Bigger Game

How about an example of tens of thousands of people sharing an "illusion"? I speak of the the Marian Apparitions(of Fatima). To encapsulate, this is where 3 Shepherd children in Portugal were reportedly visited by an angel. The angelic visits where allegedly to prepare the children for visitations by the "Blessed Mother" starting in 1917. In July of that year, the "The Virgin Mary", herself, purportedly promised that there would be a "miracle" on October 13 so that all would believe. 

On October of that year, a crowd as big as 70,000 people showed up to see the event. There were reporters and photographers, as well. Once the rain had subsided, it was reported that the sun "danced" in the sky. This, believers contend, was the "miracle"..i.e..the evidence that, in fact, "The Blessed Mother" did keep her promise.

Now, what in tarnation is really going on, here? Tell me something, on list of what mostly likely happened in the above-cited examples, do you put talking "spirits", "angels", "demons", and "virgin" ghosts on the top of that list??? Or are those things at the very bottom of the list? I mean, how can two people, and especially thousands of people, be wrong and deluded?  Just how is this possible?

Here's how: 

Regarding the first example, the two playing the Ouija Board go into it EXPECTING to communicate with dead people. An expectation is the first ginormous hint that the ordeal will contain partiality. The next elephant-sized hint is that the participants are touching the indicator. Duh? Hello? Next, factor in that, since one player probably doesn't want the other player to feel let down, that, in all likelihood, he or she would then be willing to consciously move the indicator, and naturally, this would convince the other player that "spirits" are speaking through them. 

Last but not least, there is the "ideomotor effect", and this is where the subject makes motions unconsciously, and in the case of the Ouija Board, they move their hand unconsciously. For instance, like under certain conditions when tears are shed, this isn't done consciously, but unconsciously.
 
Regarding the second example, the 70,000 people are EXPECTING to see a "miracle". After all, their "faith" depends on it. Next, consider that they are hot, dehydrated from waiting outside, and most of all, they are looking...where? Why of course, they're looking directly into the flippin' SUN, just as they were instructed to do. 

Now, isn't it highly likely that staring directly into the sun(since it can cause blindness, after all) can cause hallucinations? And perhaps most importantly, why didn't any of the rest of the world's population see this event? Hmmmm.....

Poor, poor Mother Mary. Whatever will she do with her gullible children?    


17 comments:

Robert said...

WE humans are a trusting lot ... when we happen upon a crowd of people and we innocently ask "what's going on" we have no reason or expectation to believe a perfet stranger has any intent on causing us harm or lying to us.

So the response "We're witnessing the miracle of the virgin mother" in the context of "faith" and belief can be perfectly plausible ... and since we have no expectation to think someone would purposely mislead us - we accept the response on it's face.

Yup - we're gullible like that ... too many years of having kind lies massaged into our brains as "it's good for us" makes us swallow this tripe hook line and sinker.

But it's high time we as a people question it all - everything right down to the foundation ... re-inspect everything we've built the house on ... and we find that it's a house of cards built on shifting sands.

It's no longer safe to "assume"

Lexje said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lexje said...

"Last but not least, there is the "ideomotor effect", and this is where the subject makes motions unconsciously, and in the case of the Ouija Board, they move their hand unconsciously. For instance, like under certain conditions when tears are shed, this isn't done consciously, but unconsciously."

Sounds very plausible. And BTW it was neither expected, nor did it ever happen before... So I'll keep this one in mind...

Robert said...

Lexji: Sounds very plausible.

Yup - it just might be plausible ... because we all know Milton & Bradley (the "game" makers did vast exacting research to know with scientific certainty that the spirit world will swoop down and move the pointer to answer the age old question of 13 year old girls - "Does Timmy like Mary?" ... and "Did Billy kiss Sue?"

Only the spirits know these things ... but it "could be plausible" that Jenny is moving the pointer ... maybe

>.<

Too bad there is no god ... he'd certainly be merciful enough to kill me for even having to type this stuff

Lexje said...

“Yup - it just might be plausible ... >.<”

I showed this to someone else yesterday (the one who had been present actually) and he told me I was way too considerate when it came to the both of you and I should keep in mind what I’d seen and felt.

You know, I just like to consider multiple options. It’s not like a contest of some sort, at least I would not like to live my life as if it were one.

“Too bad there is no god ... he'd certainly be merciful enough to kill me for even having to type this stuff”

You don’t have to. But I appreciate you typing all of this anyway, knowing how much you dislike it. And judging by Jeff’s silence, so does he.

Robert said...

"I showed this to someone else yesterday (the one who had been present actually) and he told me I was way too considerate when it came to the both of you"

By all means - send that "someone" the link to this blog (with jeff's permission, of course)

Tell them to bring their "A" game :P

Lexje said...

“By all means - send that "someone" the link to this blog (with jeff's permission, of course)”

And then what? Have him defend me? Most people feel too insecure when it comes to their English. I don’t know if this also applies to this guy though. So instead I just send a document with the text. If Jeff’s okay with me sending a link, I’ll find out soon enough.

“Tell them to bring their "A" game :P”

What's the A game? You must be referring to something…

Robert said...

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_bring_your_A_game_mean

>.<

who would have ever thought one could look up a "phrase" on the interwebs

Estimated time investment: 30 seconds

boomSLANG said...

Attention:

Any of my readership, whether active participants, or silent lurkers, who claim be (or know someone to be) in direct possession of objective evidence for any hereto forth unproven "metaphysical"(beyond physical) phenomena or force in the universe, they are free to chime in with this evidence along with a *source.

Disclaimer: While evidence is not necessarily proof, any evidence offered does have to constitute "scientific evidence." For a broader description...

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

Thx

boomSLANG said...

"I showed this to someone else yesterday (the one who had been present actually) and he told me I was way too considerate when it came to the both of you and I should keep in mind what I’d seen and felt." ~ Lady Lexje

Please let this penetrate:

When I go to someone else's blog, I have to be considerate of the owner, even if I don't feel like do being so. 'Common courtesy/common smarts. Not-to-mention, not having either of those is a surefire way to get banned or blocked.

That said, I don't know what this "someone" thinks that you being less than considerate to us is going to get you, but let me just say this: Your complete and on-going lack of evidence for your claims is already bad enough. Factoring in tracking people down on the internet and numerous emotional outbursts, for you to take the advice of this "someone" and be less considerate than you are, on top of that, would be to follow some very stupid advice.

boomSLANG said...

From the article:

Last but not least, there is the "ideomotor effect", and this is where the subject makes motions unconsciously, and in the case of the Ouija Board, they move their hand unconsciously. For instance, like under certain conditions when tears are shed, this isn't done consciously, but unconsciously.

"Sounds very plausible. And BTW it was neither expected, nor did it ever happen before... So I'll keep this one in mind..." ~ Lady Lexje

Perhaps no expectations of what you specified, but you will be hard-pressed to convince me that each time that you take on a "client", or "patient", or however you'd like to refer to the people who come to you for "metaphysical therapy", that you don't expect some sort of result(as do your "clients").

See, that is all you need..i.e..an expectation that something will occur. With that broad, sought expectation, this opens the flood gates for "hits"..e.g..."at that exact moment, a butterfly flew through the window!"...or, "we both felt our hands being pushed down!".

And BTW, if this never happened before, all the more reason it gets filed under coincidence, instead of under the preferred testable, repeatable evidence on which we can make predictions. Keep that part in mind, too.

Lexje said...

@Bobbie:
“http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_bring_your_A_game_mean”

Yes I looked it up, but did not include “bring your”, so no such luck. So thanx.

@Jeff:
“Any of my readership, whether active participants, or silent lurkers, who claim be (or know someone to be) in direct possession of objective evidence for any hereto forth unproven "metaphysical"(beyond physical) phenomena or force in the universe, they are free to chime in with this evidence along with a *source.
Disclaimer: While evidence is not necessarily proof, any evidence offered does have to constitute "scientific evidence."”


I’ll pass it on, however I doubt this person will ever join the discussion here, especially with these demands.

“When I go to someone else's blog, I have to be considerate of the owner, even if I don't feel like do being so. 'Common courtesy/common smarts. Not-to-mention, not having either of those is a surefire way to get banned or blocked.”

Noted.

“That said, I don't know what this "someone" thinks that you being less than considerate to us is going to get you…”

It could be I’ve expressed myself wrongly here. What I meant to say is that he was very surprised at my answer and that I actually was considering what you said as a “possibility”. That’s why he said to me that he thought I gave too much “consideration” to your answers, instead of sticking to my own views and what I’ve always said.

“…Factoring in tracking people down on the internet…”

All I wanted to know was who was behind that name, get to see a face. Since I did I send a reply to something on the blog and then Bobbie invited me to send a friend request, which is a while ago now. To me this doesn’t seem such a strange thing to do. I’ve also got friends now who I’ve only spoken to shortly at a concert. What’s the harm in it and why compare it to stalker tendencies?

“Perhaps no expectations of what you specified, but you will be hard-pressed to convince me that each time that you take on a "client", or "patient", or however you'd like to refer to the people who come to you for "metaphysical therapy", that you don't expect some sort of result(as do your "clients").”

Well yes I anticipate seeing/feeling things, but never something like this. Something happening within my own body, is way different than something happening to a client. And I do want to add something: Because of what you’ve said/explained here before, I've started questioning numerous experiences/expectations.

“And BTW, if this never happened before, all the more reason it gets filed under coincidence, instead of under the preferred testable, repeatable evidence on which we can make predictions.”

Okay, it never crossed my mind to see it as “coincidence” instead of “remarkable”. I just took a mental note and wondered what it could be. But sure, it sounds logical to not consider it evidential until it gets repeated.

boomSLANG said...

"I’ll pass it on, however I doubt this person will ever join the discussion here, especially with these demands." ~ Lady Lexje

Nothing is being demanded.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence ~ C. Sagan

Lexje said...

For something totally different...

Did you ever check this?
https://www.pledgemusic.com/

Lexje said...

“Nothing is being demanded.”

Just hypothetically: You are being invited to join someone’s blog, but if you do, you have to meet up to these requirements expressed in the disclaimer. What would you think/do?

All you are is a client/friend who happens to have shared the same experience and would like to express something about this experience, without being “ordered” to give the proper kind of evidence. Cause you may say it’s no demand, but just see how it comes across. Even it were to be a kind request, it’s still something you require.

And whereas you can say these things to me and I accept you do (even when not meeting up to your required standards), it’s something else when it comes to someone new, coming to your blog for the very first time.

Robert said...

I showed this to someone else yesterday (the one who had been present actually) and he told me I was way too considerate when it came to the both of you and I should keep in mind what I’d seen and felt.

Just hypothetically: You are being invited to join someone’s blog, but if you do, you have to meet up to these requirements expressed in the disclaimer. What would you think/do?

How about something more simple like:

"Since you apparently have and opinion on these matters - you've been invited to share them first hand - (optional) - if you've got the balls"

;)

boomSLANG said...

"Just hypothetically: You are being invited to join someone’s blog[....]"

I get the hypothetical part, and I assume it's to make a point.

In the case that your hypothetical is supposed to be analogous to this blog, in actuality, you were not "invited to join" this blog; you invited yourself, and initially, that was anonymously. Moreover, an "invitation" can mean membership only, in many cases. 'Not the case, here.

"[....]but if you do, you have to meet up to these requirements expressed in the disclaimer."

I don't have "requirements" in my disclaimer, other than the reader/guest is being asked to understand what I do on this blog, and why. But even if they don't understand it, they are still free to post.

"What would you think/do?"

It depends on the type of blog and what the disclaimer actually says.

"All you are is a client/friend who happens to have shared the same experience and would like to express something about this experience, without being 'ordered' to give the proper kind of evidence."

Not sure where this is going, but you haven't been "ordered" to give evidence, as far as this blog is concerned.

"Cause you may say it’s no demand, but just see how it comes across."

I can see how it comes across. Anytime the discussion/focus is on religion and/or politics, there is the potential for people getting offended, angry, incensed, etc. I take the subject seriously, and I have numerous posts delineating why I do. Moreover, it is up to each blog owner/operator to drawn his or her lines in the sand. I have drawn my lines. If this blog was dedicated to discussing recipes or sewing tips, things would be different; people would see a different "me". But alas, it's not about recipes or sewing tips, it's mostly about putting religion and other supernatural claims under the microscope. So, people see largely one side of me, a serious and determined side. I fully acknowledge and accept that this can be a turn-off to some.

"Even it were to be a kind request, it’s still something you require"

It's a "requirement" insofar as if the reader desires that I believe his or her claims. No such desires? No such requirements.